Hell, I don't think it would be that big a deal if Enuja had tested positive and not disclosed to her future partners (assuming they didn't ask).
Read, at least at 2 am, like you were saying that while Enuja was infected, there's nothing wrong with going about business as usual if no one asks. Now it sounds like you're saying after the infection clears up. I agree with that - for temporary infections, having had it in the past has no bearing on your present or future.
HPV is not benign. There's also multiple strains. You've also failed to acknowledge an understanding of the difference between "most people will have had it" [at some point] and "most people have it" [at all times].
*Assuming that she's had clean pap smears since then and I'm correct about how tests work.
Right, and could it not take up to two years for that? Where that led to was my not understanding how anyone would possibly consent to sex with someone who is knowingly infected with HPV, because transmission seems risky despite using protection. For the period where she is still infectious, it seems doubtful to me that she would be able to find partners that are both willing and informed. I understand there are some forms of vaccines now for certain strains? That seems like it would certainly influence the decision-making process for some (again, not myself). But in the scope of this thread, the only example I've heard of is with someone with HIV - which has been explained to be maintainable/preventable with meds and condoms. With that being true, then the risk isn't really changed the same way was with HPV.
So... what about HPV? That isn't? Who here has actually had a full (or at least broad) range of tests run, had them all come back clear (can we use that word?) and then met someone who said "I just had HPV confirmed", and then went on to have sex - knowing that they have a more than average chance of catching it? This is akin to my car analogy - I get in the car every day, that's risky. I don't get in with drunk or untrained (or otherwise "risk++") drivers.
I'm not sure anyone will be able to say me, just because of how few people are participating ... but you can look at this way:
I know with as much certainty as possible that I am free of any STI -----> I know with certainty that I have HPV
I don't know with any certainty if I have any STI(s) ------> I know with certainty that I have HPV
The left side has absolutely no bearing on the effect on risk that the right side produces. I don't see how any sex could ever be worth taking on that risk in absolute certainty.
So for those of you having been on other side - if you do find someone willing to jump in and take that absolute increased risk... don't you wonder what other decisions they've made? How complex is your discussion going to have to be in order to make it "responsible sex" (so that you can actually understand where this persons boundaries/judgements are)?
And setzer777, I said that Enuja was not being responsible because by being polyamorous, they've taken on additional risk already, and some level of risk-reduction should be done in order to combat that. In an ideal world we'd all just wave a smart phone over someone else's genitalia and get a nice big "DTF!" image, or something, but no, increased testing in response to increased risk seems like a pretty reasonable request to me.
Considering that nearly 60% of the population of the US (and between 65% and 90% worldwide) are infected with herpes, you probably have. Hells, I've been strictly monogamous my entire life (i.e., only one sexual partner ever), and I've got it.
Okay, so aside from the fact I meant, I would never proceed with sex if someone disclosed to me that they knew they had...
Yes, HSV-1+ HSV-2 has a rather high rate of prevalence. HSV-2 not as much by itself, and most of my good ol' days were before I was 20, which puts me dipping in a fairly favourable bracket, statistically. You can't say that because 60% of the sampled population has it, 60% of the people I've been with have it.